2022 (11) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Prakash, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by M/s Harish Associates against demand of service tax, interest and imposition of penalties. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant were registered under the category of Consulting Engineer and was paying service tax in that capacity. He pointed out that demand is sought....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e also pointed out that the OIO does not imposed any penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He pointed out that if there was elements of suppression, misdeclaration etc then 78 would have been imposed. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the appellant had paid an amount of Rs 1 Lac vide challan dated 22.09.2003 and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cture" 4.2 It is not in dispute that the appellant is not registered under section 23 of the Architect Act, 1972. Learned AR had argued that the appellant as commercial concerns is engaged in providing services in the nature of designing ,planning, Architecture and site supervision. It is apparent that without proper registration no one can provide services in the field of Architecture. Thus, t....